Lindsay et al v. Trump et al

Filing
5

MINUTE ORDER. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via U.S. Mail)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
MATTHEW JAMES LINDSEY,
10
Plaintiff,
MINUTE ORDER
v.
11
12
CASE NO. C18-0137-JCC
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
17
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On February 5, 2018, Magistrate Judge
18
Mary Alice Theiler granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended
19
the complaint be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) prior to the issuance of a summons.
20
(Dkt. No. 3.)
21
Plaintiff lists the Defendants as Donald J. Trump, Mike Pence, James Norman Mattis,
22
Ronna Romney McDaniel, and Bob Paduchik (Dkt. No. 4 at 1–2.) Plaintiff alleges violations of
23
18 U.S.C. § 205(d)(1), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, 22 U.S.C. § 3201, 10 U.S.C.
24
§ 108 Armed Forces, House of Representatives Legislation, H.R. 8638, and the United Nations
25
Nuclear Resolution and International Peace Maintenance Agreement. (Id. at 5.) He seeks the
26
following relief: “Reconciliation of federal liabilities and termination of incompetent and
MINUTE ORDER
C18-0137-JCC
PAGE - 1
1
insufficient representation by the Governmental Fiduciary Agents” (Id.) Plaintiff includes no
2
factual allegations about how he was harmed or how the Defendants violated the above
3
provisions, but attached three documents to his complaint—an article from the website
4
Wikipedia.org, a one page informational document on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
5
Nuclear Weapons, and a Resolution from the United Nations Security Council adopted on
6
November 21, 2017. (Dkt. No. 4-1.)
7
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis
8
complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or
9
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. “[A] complaint must
10
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
11
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
12
544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
13
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
14
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
15
Plaintiff has neither presented a cognizable legal claim nor alleged facts that demonstrate
16
his claim for relief is plausible. Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that Defendant has
17
violated federal laws and treaties, without providing any facts to support the claims. (Dkt. No. 4
18
at 2–5.) The attachments to Plaintiff’s complaint do not help the Court to decipher his legal
19
theory.
20
Nor does Plaintiff state a cause of action that would allow him to bring his lawsuit. 18
21
U.S.C. § 205, is a federal criminal statute that prohibits executive branch employees from
22
representing non-government entities in front of federal agencies. 22 U.S.C. § 3201 is a
23
Congressional declaration regarding the use and transfer of nuclear materials. The other
24
provisions he cites are not laws. (See Dkt. No. 4 at 5.) Plaintiff’s claim is therefore frivolous
25
because it “lacks an arguable basis in fact or law.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
26
Even in applying the Ninth Circuit’s directive to construe pro se complaints liberally, the
MINUTE ORDER
C18-0137-JCC
PAGE - 2
1
Court cannot find that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Hebbe v.
2
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, the Court will not dismiss a claim unless “it
3
is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the [complaint’s] defects.” Lucas v. Dep't of
4
Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
5
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later
6
than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must
7
include a short and plain statement demonstrating to the Court that there is a legal basis for his
8
claims against Defendants. Plaintiff shall identify facts that demonstrate Defendants violated the
9
law and how Plaintiff is entitled to relief as a result of the violation. Finally, Plaintiff must
10
11
12
13
request forms of relief that the Court can actually grant.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at 1612 Bothell Everett
Hwy, Suite 354, Mill Creek, WA 98012.
DATED this 7th day of February 2018.
14
William M. McCool
Clerk of Court
15
s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MINUTE ORDER
C18-0137-JCC
PAGE - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.